“In my post 38 I touched on this. I didn’t think you had objected so I touched on it again.In my post 38 I touched on this. I didn’t think you had objected so I touched on it again.”
1. You didn’t ‘touch’ on it again. You made a blatant lie about what I said and didn’t even have the courtesy to copy what I said in your post.
2. In the linked post#38, you did NOT attribute anything to me so why should I object.
2. I did reply to #38 THREE times.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3193350/posts?page=62#62
Yes you did respond to it. And here you are trying to make the case it would be wrong to release the guy based simply on the inclusion of a statement that he said nothing prior to Mirandizing.
At least it appears you wish me to agree with that. And since I did tie it to the conviction, it appears you approve of tying it to the conviction.
If I were the judge I would not allow the mention of his silence prior to Mirandizing. His silence does not provide evidence of guilt or innocence. If it is mentioned, it could be seen as prejudicial and I would not want a defence attorney to be able to come back and appeal based on prejudicial actions by the prosecution.
It appeared to me you had no such concern, and were fine with the tactic. I am not, and I called you on that point.
It is true you didn’t come right out and say it, but the inference was there.